Many modern OO Theologians (from several OO jurisdictions, actually) teach the penal satisfaction/Anselmian atonement theory. I have heard many Orthodox believers contest saying that this was a later Western doctrine. I am curious though, has the penal satisfaction theory historically been taught in OOxy, or is it just the result of Protestant/RC influence?

My $0.02: I think the idea of a satisfaction theory of the atonement, Christ satisfying the Father's wrath/consistency/justice and paying the debt of our sins, is an Orthodox teaching so long as it is balanced with the ontological theory (that is, Christ heals human nature and rescues us from the snares of death). I am not so sure the same applies for penal substitution (but, I am willing to keep an open mind either way) because it seems to undermine the impassibility of God by stating that His honor was harmed by our sinfulness.

Bottom line: Has this atonement theory been historically taught in OOxy?

« Last Edit: August 26, 2012, 11:58:11 PM by Severian »

Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ

Here's what several OO Hierarchs and Theologians (from the Coptic, Syriac, and Armenian Churches) have to say on the Atonement:

Holy Communion is not only a Sacrament but also a Sacrifice. “As Sacrifice, it is the continuation of the sacrifice of Golgotha.” The very words used by our Lord clearly show this: “My Body given . . ., or broken for you,” “My Blood shed . . . for many for the remission of sins.” “These expressions indicate that this Institution is itself a propitiatory sacrifice.” It is not simply a representation of the death of our Lord, but actual and real sacrifice, in which “The Offerer and the Victim are one and the same, our Lord, even if the sacrifice be offered by the priest.” It is not simply a reminder or commemoration of the historical fact of Golgotha, but an actual and objective sacrifice. The purpose of the sacrifice on the Cross was the reconciliation of man with God, the atonement for the sins of man and their expiation, in general. Whereas the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is offered for specific people, it is the application of the general benefits of the sacrifice of the Cross, to those for whom the Eucharist is celebrated, both for the living and the dead.

Sin is an offense against God, King David said, “Against You, You only, have I sinned and done evil in Your sight” (Ps 51:4). This he said even though he sinned against Uriah the Hittite and his wife Bathsheba. The weight of that offence is proportional to the status of the offended party. Sin is, therefore, considered unlimited because it is committed against the unlimited God. Consequently, any sin requires unlimited atonement.

This atonement should be provided by a person who is:

1. Unlimited: To be able to provide this unlimited atonement the Savior has to be unlimited.2. Sinless: The Savior has to be free from sin to be able to redeem others, or else he would needsalvation himself.3. Human: Since human beings committed the sin, therefore, a human being should pay the price.4. Mortal: Since the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23), therefore, the savior has to be mortal.

Our Lord Jesus Christ is:

1. Unlimited: He said, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. Who is and Whowas and Who is to come, the Almighty” (Rev 1:8 ).2. Sinless: Archangel Gabriel said to the Virgin, “That Holy One who is to be born will be called theSon of God” (Lk 1:35). Our lord said, “Which of you convicts Me of sin?” (Jn 8:46).3. Human: Our Lord was called the Son of Man several times, also, the Bible documents that onseveral occasions He was thirsty, hungry, tired, sleeping, etc…4. Mortal: Even though our Lord is immortal due to His divinity, he assumed a human nature thatwas liable to die.

The Ransom:

Our Lord said, “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mk 10:45), St. Paul said, “There is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all” (1Tim 2:5-6). The word ‘ransom’ suggests some kind of payment and someone to whom this ransom is paid. The question is, “To whom was this ransom paid?” Origen and some early fathers suggested that this ransom was paid to the devil but the Church rejected this idea. H.H. Pope Shenouda III clarified this issue and said, “The ransom was paid to the Divine Justice. The Old Testament sacrifices were symbols of the sacrifice of the cross. These sacrifices were not offered to the devil but were offered to God. Hence, holy fire came down from heaven and consumed them (1Kg 18:38), and it is written that God “smelled a soothing aroma” (Gen 8:21) after the sacrifice of our father Noah. Since sin is committed against God (Ps 51:4) then the price of this sin should be paid to God Himself, the devil has no right to ask or to accept a ransom. The devil is just an accuser(Rev 12:10; Job 1). On the cross our Lord offered Himself to the Father (Lk 23:46) and not to the devil”.

-S. Naguib, a recollection of Lecture 1 on Original Sin and Atonement by HH Pope Shenouda.The mediation of the Lord Jesus Christ is an atonement, which means that He mediates for the forgiveness of our sins, being the Atoner who paid our debts on our behalf. His mediation means that He says to the Father: "Do not count their transgressions because I have carried their iniquity" (Is.53:6). Thus He stands as a Mediator between God and men; or rather, He is the only Mediator between God and men; He fulfilled God's Divine Justice and granted people the forgiveness of sins, by dying for them.

-HH Pope Shenouda, Comparative Theology, p. 77Sin is very awful indeed and leads to eternal death. The Apostle James said: and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death (Jas. 1:15). For the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23). Therefore when sin overtakes a person, he becomes overwhelmed with apprehension, anxiety, guilt and instability. In fear and trepidation, He expects severe punishment as a consequence for what he has committed. But thanks be to God for sending His Son, Who became an atonement for us by His death on the Cross, thus abolishing sin by His resurrection from among the dead. In so doing, He reconciled us with His heavenly Father, Who wants us to be at peace with heaven in order to be worthy to inherit the kingdom of God. For we have been justified from the original sin when we were buried with Christ in Baptism, even to death, and rose with Him to a new life. Yet, we are humans, and are always susceptible to sin, but on Judgment Day the Lord shall not ask: why did you sin? but rather: why didn't you repent?

Many modern OO Theologians (from several OO jurisdictions, actually) teach the penal satisfaction/Anselmian atonement theory. I have heard many Orthodox believers contest saying that this was a later Western doctrine. I am curious though, has the penal satisfaction theory historically been taught in OOxy, or is it just the result of Protestant/RC influence?

My $0.02: I think the idea of a satisfaction theory of the atonement, Christ satisfying the Father's wrath/consistency/justice and paying the debt of our sins, is an Orthodox teaching so long as it is balanced with the ontological theory (that is, Christ heals human nature and rescues us from the snares of death). I am not so sure the same applies for penal substitution (but, I am willing to keep an open mind either way) because it seems to undermine the impassibility of God by stating that His honor was harmed by our sinfulness.\

Bottom line: Has this atonement theory been historically taught in OOxy?

I've never heard of penal satisfaction within the Ethiopian tradition. If anything, Marian traditions outweigh any need for substitution or atonement theology, because under Ethiopian Marian theology, the prayers of the Virgin Mary can supercede the issues guilt and judgement in regards to sin. Several aspects of Ethiopian theology, including the Covenant of Mercy, imply that spiritual piety and an active prayer life can overcome the impediments and guilt of sin so that atonement or substitution becomes irrelevant. The prayers of Our Lady are the atonement, and Confession and Repentance of Sin is the substitution/satisfaction. However, Ethiopia is a big place, there are well over 250,000 priests, and some could perhaps hold or even teach contrary to these views. I think atonement is not Orthodox, because it overemphasizes the humanity of Jesus Christ. Essentially, atonement teaches that by sacrificing Himself as a human offering for Sin, Jesus quite literally paid the price for sin accord in to the guilt offerings of the Law. How can God sacrifice Himself to Himself for Himself? It is literally redundant. The Orthodox soteriology seems to teach rather that biologically speaking, through the Incarnation Jesus Christ renewed this original human potential for Salvation, so that atonement or substitution is unnecessary, because human nature is renewed and restored in His Incarnation.

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

^Thank you for the contribution, Habte. However, what do you think of those Fathers who do sometimes use judicial language when speaking of the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ?

Examples:

On the Atonement of Christ

+"So he became sin to remit the sins of others: so also he paid the debt that was incurred for us, and we ourselves became righteousness in him; for those who have been freed from debts are righteous, and |203 are not termed liable. And, because during the time of his Humanization he did no sin, therefore also iniquity was not found in him, but he showed himself righteous, that is, he is righteousness; and, when he became flesh, all our nature again was justified in him as in firstfruits; and this is what the wise Paul said to the Corinthians about the Father, «He made him sin for our sake, who knew no sin, that we might be the righteousness of God in him»"

-Saint Severus of Antioch, Letter 65, 6th Century

+"The Divine Scripture says that Christ hath been made the High Priest and Apostle of our confession [Heb. 3:1] and He hath offered Himself for us for an odour of a sweet smell to God the Father. If any one therefore say that not the Very Word of God was made our High Priest and Apostle when He was made Flesh and man as we, but that man of a woman apart from himself as other than He, was [so made]: or if any one say that in His own behalf also He offered the Sacrifice and not rather for us alone (for He needed not offering Who knoweth not sin), be he anathema."

-Saint Cyril of Alexandria, 10th Anathema to Nestorius, 5th Century

+"For being over all, the Word of God naturally by offering His own temple and corporeal instrument for the life of all satisfied the debt by His death"

-Saint Athanasius the Apostolic, On the Incarnation, 4th Century

+“It is as if, at a session of a court of justice, the devil should be addressed as follows: ‘Granted that you destroyed all men because you found them guilty of sin; but why did you destroy Christ? Is it not very evident that you did so unjustly? Well then, through Him the whole world will be vindicated."

-Saint John Chrysostom, Commentary on St. John the Apostle and Evangelist; Homilies 48-88

+“God, Who is incomparably higher than the visible and invisible creation, accepted human nature, which is higher than the whole visible creation, and offered it as a sacrifice to His God and Father.... Honoring the sacrifice, the Father could not leave it in the hands of death. Therefore, He annihilated His sentence."

-(Saint) Symeon the New Theologian, The First-Created Man

« Last Edit: August 26, 2012, 11:52:36 PM by Severian »

Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ

^Thank you for the contribution, Habte. However, what do you think of those Fathers who do sometimes use judicial language when speaking of the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ?

Examples:

On the Atonement of Christ

+"So he became sin to remit the sins of others: so also he paid the debt that was incurred for us, and we ourselves became righteousness in him; for those who have been freed from debts are righteous, and |203 are not termed liable. And, because during the time of his Humanization he did no sin, therefore also iniquity was not found in him, but he showed himself righteous, that is, he is righteousness; and, when he became flesh, all our nature again was justified in him as in firstfruits; and this is what the wise Paul said to the Corinthians about the Father, «He made him sin for our sake, who knew no sin, that we might be the righteousness of God in him»"

This quote could as much be interpreted in line with the renewing of human nature through the Incarnation as much as the sacrifice of the Holy Communion.

Quote

-Saint Severus of Antioch, Letter 65, 6th Century

+"The Divine Scripture says that Christ hath been made the High Priest and Apostle of our confession [Heb. 3:1] and He hath offered Himself for us for an odour of a sweet smell to God the Father. If any one therefore say that not the Very Word of God was made our High Priest and Apostle when He was made Flesh and man as we, but that man of a woman apart from himself as other than He, was [so made]: or if any one say that in His own behalf also He offered the Sacrifice and not rather for us alone (for He needed not offering Who knoweth not sin), be he anathema."

-Saint Cyril of Alexandria, 10th Anathema to Nestorius, 5th Century

Again, the emphasis on the Incarnation here seems to imply that the kenosis of the Incarnation is as much the sacrifice of humility as was the Cross, where contemporary Atonement theology tends to emphasize the sacrifice of the Cross as the moment of human redemption, I would say the Fathers tend to orient biologically speaking around the Incarnation and Nativity.

Quote

+"For being over all, the Word of God naturally by offering His own temple and corporeal instrument for the life of all satisfied the debt by His death"

-Saint Athanasius the Apostolic, On the Incarnation, 4th Century

This seems more to support Atonement, but again, His death can only happen in the context of His Incarnation, and His death also is symbolic of the fullness of His human incarnation and weakness of kenosis. So the sacrifice could be either the Cross itself, or in having become incarnate and taken on mortality from birth. I would have to see the quote in a fuller context to assess more properly the intended meaning.

Quote

+“It is as if, at a session of a court of justice, the devil should be addressed as follows: ‘Granted that you destroyed all men because you found them guilty of sin; but why did you destroy Christ? Is it not very evident that you did so unjustly? Well then, through Him the whole world will be vindicated."

-Saint John Chrysostom, Commentary on St. John the Apostle and Evangelist; Homilies 48-88

+“God, Who is incomparably higher than the visible and invisible creation, accepted human nature, which is higher than the whole visible creation, and offered it as a sacrifice to His God and Father.... Honoring the sacrifice, the Father could not leave it in the hands of death. Therefore, He annihilated His sentence."

-(Saint) Symeon the New Theologian, The First-Created Man

Again, these are not so specific to the sacrifice of the Cross as much as the humility of kenosis through the Incarnation, His assuming and thus restoring Human nature. The modern atonement theology essentially seems to teach that by His DEATH He redeemed human nature, where as I feel the Fathers imply that through the kenosis of His Incarnation He made the sacrifice and by becoming human inherently restored human nature.

I'm not sure the Fathers mean Atonement in the same way it has come to be thought of it contemporary theology as a tit for tat, legalistic, eye for an eye kind of thing. Yes, Christ was a sacrifice for our sins, but in that is in connection with the theology of the Holy Communion. Current atonement theology, particularly among Protestants, rarely is connected with the Holy Communion.

stay blessed,habte selassie

« Last Edit: August 27, 2012, 12:00:58 AM by HabteSelassie »

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

It seems to me, from my study of St Cyril and St Severus (which I am not suggesting is comprehensive), that the Anselmian notion of Penal Substitution is very far from their own Orthodox teaching. Indeed I do not believe it is Orthodox at all.

This does not mean that there is not a place for an understanding of God's just and righteous judgement against sin, his hatred and condemnation of sin, his punishment of those who turn to darkness and harden their hearts. But this is not what Anselm teaches. The more I study our own Orthodox Fathers - St Athanasius, St Cyril and St Severus - the more I am filled with their own sense of the deep and abiding love of God for mankind, and the sense that the whole of the Holy Trinity is involved in earnestly desiring the renewal of mankind in life above all else. The idea that one of the Holy Trinity had to somehow become an object of hatred by another is far, far from Orthodox.

I will not fill this forum with extensive passages from the Fathers, but I can do if necessary, and perhaps I will write a paper explaining my understanding. I need to write something for the next edition of the British Orthodox Glastonbury Review in any case. But I will try to summarise my understanding.

God, the Holy Trinity, created man as the object of divine love. Looking upon Adam and Eve He said that what He had created was good. Man was created from dust, and like all created beings was naturally mortal and corruptible (corruptible is not the same as corrupt). But Adam and Eve received the breath of life, the Holy Spirit, who was breathed into them and granted them the gift of immortality and incorruptibility. This blessed life in the Garden of Eden was contingent upon one thing only, that the law of God which said 'you shall not eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil' was not broken. As long as Adam and Eve preserved themselves in obedience they retained the gift of the Holy Spirit, and would have lived for ever in a state of happiness with God.

But Adam and Eve were tempted, and by the exercise of their own free will they chose to satisfy their own pleasure, and by choosing other than God's will they fell into sin. Sin is nothing other than the exercise of the human will apart from God. The Fathers are very clear that sin has no existence at all. It is a wrong choice. A choice for self and not for God. When Adam and Eve chose other than God they broke the one command they had been given, and the curse fell upon them. Dust you are and to dust you shall return.

The Holy Spirit withdrew from Adam and Eve, it cannot dwell where there is sin. Adam and Eve found themselves left in their own human nature - mortal and corruptible. Human nature was not changed. St Cyril and St Severus are absolutely insistent that our human nature has not become corrupted. But our hearts are without the stabilising grace of the Holy Spirit and our wills are shot to pieces, choosing other than God all the time. Yet even when the curse fell upon Adam and Eve our Fathers teach us that this was an exercise of God's mercy and love. It would have been a terrible thing if mankind was allowed an immortality in sin, and so the length of a man's life was cut short by his natural mortality. Even more, God granted that the soul of a man might retain the gift of immortality so that it would always be drawn beyond itself to the spiritual heights of heaven - which is why every man is filled with a yearning for that which is eternal.

Cast out of Eden, man was doomed to suffer, to hunger and thirst, and eventually to suffer a bodily death. Yet there was a greater doom, since having lost the Holy Spirit he was already in a state of absolute death, of separation from God.

Each of us is born into this condition of mortality and corruptibility. But we are not born sinners. We are not born corrupt. Our human nature is as it was when God created it and saw that it was good. Yet because we lack grace and the Holy Spirit we all of us find that our will is turned this way and that and quickly finds itself bound by sinful habit, ignorance and self-love. We are born mortal, but not sinners. We choose to sin.

Yet we are still under the curse and in the power of death. Not even so much the death of our bodies but the death of separation from Life, from God Himself who was the true life of Adam and desired to be the true life of all mankind. The ultimate problem which mankind faces is the righteous judgement laid upon Adam which we all suffer the consequences of. Even if each one of us stopped sinning, or somehow had never sinned throughout our whole lives we would still be lost, not because our humanity is corrupt and sinful - this is absolutely rejected by the Orthodox Fathers - but because we are all in a state of gracelessness, and we all naturally lack the Holy Spirit. Even a sinless man would suffer all of our human frailities and would die. Even a sinless man would be left apart from God for eternity, because all of mankind is in the state in which God's judgement upon Adam left us - we are mortal and corruptible and do not have the breath of Life in us.

When the Holy Trinity willed to save mankind from this state it was not possible that the curse be lifted simply as an exercise of mercy. As has been said elsewhere in this thread, the mercy and righteousness of God must both be satisfied. But the Fathers do not teach that God was so angry, or filled with such wrath, that only a divine sacrifice could appease Him. Far from it. The work of salvation is the will of the whole Trinity, which loves man and wished his salvation.

No mere man could save man, because even a perfectly holy life could not take away the curse which was justly spoken. Rather, it was necessary that a new humanity be created, not by changing the substance of our humanity, but by renewing the divine relationship with man so that the Holy Spirit could once more take up a habitation in our hearts and souls.

The Word Himself became man as we are, save for sin. This means that he took our own humanity from the Virgin Mary, a humanity which was mortal and corruptible, but not corrupt. It was liable to suffer, to hunger and thirst, and to die. If he was to save mankind then he must unite our own humanity to himself, and not some other humanity that was not in our situation. Being mortal and corruptible it was found in the state of being under the curse of God. He shared our own condition, caused by sin, by Adam's sin, but he never chose other than the will of God, and therefore there was never any sin in him, and though his body was physically corruptible and liable to suffering and blamesless passions such as hunger, there was never any trace of the moral passions which we allow to grow and flourish in our own hearts.

The Fathers teach us that one of the reasons why our Lord took our humanity by means of a Virgin Birth was not because he had anything but the highest regard for the sancitity and holiness of marriage, but because he wanted to show that he was the firstfruits, the founder, of a new spiritual humanity in which those who were to be united with him would be sons and daughters of God.

What did the Word do in his incarnation? The Fathers teach us that it was necessary that he lived out our human life in obedience. He is described many times as 'taking up the fight which Adam lost'. So we must understand the incarnation as replaying what happened in Eden. In the Garden, Adam, the man who held our human destiny in his hands, blew it in a big way. Now in his earthly life, and clearly in the Garden of Gethsemane, the same contest happens again, but this time Christ, the Word Incarnate says 'Your will be done'. The failure of Adam had been redeemed in the obedience of Christ.

But this was not enough. A perfect human life had been lived in obedience, which was the basis for the renewal of man's relationship with God. But the curse remained. The curse was not an act if God's implacable anger, but a necessary provision for the salvation of man. Therefore it was necessary that the power of death, true death, be broken by an exercise of power by the one who is true life. Death needed to be destroyed from within. And to be destroyed from within it needed to be experienced by one who was mortal and subject to death, therefore the Word became mortal in our own humanity.

We see several features in his death. He died on the cross, which the Holy Spirit had inspired the prophets to speak of as a cursed manner of death. He was lifted up into the air, as Moses lifted up the golden serpent in the desert for the healing of the people. He was unjustly accused of sin when there was no sin in him at all. Even in his burial he was laid in a borrowed tomb, signifiying that the death he endured was not his own but was that which was due to us.

If he sacrificed himself, and he said, 'No-one takes my life, but I lay it down', then who did he sacrifice himself to? Certainly not the Father, who had sent him to do this work of salvation - for God so loved the world. Certainly not to the Devil - the prince of this world has nothing in me. But surely he offered himself as a sacrifice of love for us. He did not die INSTEAD of us - because we were already dead. But he died WITH us so that we might live, might experience his life.

What happened when He died? In the first place he experienced that separation of body and soul which we call death. His soul descended to Hades (which I will not attempt to define) and brought out the souls of the righteous to Paradise (which I will not attempt to define). His body was preserved free from corruption - as the Fathers teach us - and as it is written in the Psalms. Then on the third day, by an exercise of his power, he destroyed death. A holy man destroyed the power of death. The curse had not been taken away, in the sense of being quietly forgotten. Rather the Word Incarnate, as a mortal man, died and then came out the other side.

A holy man, a perfect man, could not achieve this. The best he could have achieved was a sad commendation by God, well done, but sorry you are still cursed, you are still separated from God by true death. But the Word Incarnate could not only live a holy life, but he could die, and more than that he could raise himself from death.

But what does it mean for us? It means that a man, the Divine man, representing all of mankind, has made a way through death to life for us all. This Divine man has a humanity which is filled with resurrection life, true Life, and with the Holy Spirit. Now we can be united with this man and be born again into a new humanity. His life becomes our own. We participate in this life by faith and by the sacraments. These renew in us the presence of the Holy Spirit. He dwells in us not because we are perfect and holy but because Christ is and we belong to Christ. By faith we cast ourselves in humility before God alone and ask Him to have mercy on us. By baptism and chrismation God unites us to Christ and we receive the benefits which He has won for mankind. We receive the Holy Spirit who is our life, our true life. Death is overcome for us and in us. Our turning to God in faith and repentance allows God to forgive our sins, but forgiveness of sins is not all that we need. We need both forgiveness AND the life of the Holy Spirit. Our sins are forgiven because Christ, the Word Incarnate, has taken upon himself our death and in swallowing up the power of death over us he has taken away the power of the curse and has made it possible for our sins to be forgiven. He has lived an obedient life on our behalf - as Adam could have done but did not. And so we are able to say - do not look at my sins, Lord, but look at the obedience and holiness of your own son.

So why do we still die? Well the curse has not gone away. It was and is a righteous judgement against sin and against man who sins. It had an effect because of Adam, and that effect persists. We are mortal and die as mortals. But by faith and the sacraments we are united with God and follow Christ through mortal death to life. We have already received the Holy Spirit as a guarantee that we will rise to true life, because the Holy Spirit does not dwell in those who are subject to death. If we have any experience of the Holy Spirit at all then we can have faith that what has been begun will come to fulness and fruition in the life beyond death. Our sins have been forgiven because Christ has offered himself as a man who has done no sin, and who bears the consequences of our sin himself. He entered our death and took it upon himself.

But Christ has made a way for us through death to life. We follow in his footsteps. We are baptised, we fast and pray, we allow ourselves to be despised and treated as dead in the eyes of the world, we suffer and eventually we die. But this is not the end, it is the means of passing beyond the power of the just judgement of God and being restored to the place of blessing and life.

Christ did not die to satisfy God's anger. He died to manifest God's love. He died for us all, not standing in our place in the face of an infinite wrath, though we must not forget that God is indeed angered by our sin, and did indeed bring a just judgement and chastisement upon Adam and us all, but even before the judgement was made God had already - as our Fathers clearly teach - prepared a way of salvation to deal with the outcome of Adam's sin, which he forsaw. He has always acted in love towards us, even before he created us, and even when Adam sinned.

If we are found in Christ then mortal death holds no fears. It is the path to life. It frees us from the power of the curse and brings us to the place of promise. We can experience this now, if we are faithful. Life in the midst of death. Life in the face of death. Life with power over death. If I die surely I will live.

The teaching of Anselm reminds us that we should not diminish the offence of sin in the eyes of God. It is death to us. It is the opposite of life and therefore is anti-God. It repels God. But we should not turn to Anselm to remind ourselves of the cost of our sin, and its offensiveness. He is not Orthodox. He teaches a deformed Christianity. We must always turn back to our own Orthodox and trusted Fathers and see how they explain these things. And we can find much in our own Fathers about the seriousness of sin. We should not base our theology on a Roman Catholic teacher, this will lead to imbalance.

No mere man could save us. The judgement of God against us was indeed an infinite judgement which could not be overturned. But it was always the judgement of a loving Father, not an angry, wrathful and distant deity. Only the Word Incarnate could overcome the divine judgement by participating with us in the outcome of that judgement, by living with us and for us, by dying with us and for us, and by rising to new life in the Holy Spirit for us. God is love, not wrath. 'God so loved the world', not was 'so angry with the world'.

My every sin deserves death and is a slap in God's face. But God knows what I am like. Christ knows what I am like. Yet still I am offered new life in Christ. He allows me to share in his renewed humanity though there is nothing in me that warrants such kindness. All of this demonstrates to me the overwhelming love of God towards us.

Penal substitution as popularly taught does not do justice to God's love, nor is it rooted in the teaching of the true and Orthodox Fathers. This is not the teaching of St Athanasius, St Cyril or St Severus. Justice indeed had to be served, and the Fathers are constant in this theme, God could not simply overturn His judgement, but this is never because he is so angry, or because he is offended. He knew what we were like before he made us, nothing is a surprise. Even his judgement is a mercy, as St Severus and St Cyril teach us. And even while he was angry with a righteous indignation against Adam and Eve, and against each one of us who follows them in sin, nevertheless he was always loving with a perfect love towards those he had created and chastised them and us rather than punishing us as we truly deserved.

I could write much more, but I hope that this short summary explains at least my own understanding of these things.

God bless all who seek to understand the truth, may the Holy Spirit lead us into truth

Dear Severian,Though the exact mechanism of salvation remains a mystery to us, our fathers have given us various prisms to understand the Divine Mystery of Salvation. The problem arises when only one of those prisms that too slightly distorted is emphasized.You can see the language of Substitutionary Atonement dispersed throughout the Prayers used in the Syriac Orthodox Church. But always you will find any reference to sufferings of Christ for us is balanced by Christ the Victor; and how his resurrection gives us life. The best example of this can be seen in the following Syriac Hymn (English translation) from the Sunday Evening Prayers as used in the Syriac tradition (Syriac Orthodox and Malankara Orthodox).

Lord gave Adam courage, among all the dead Be not troubled henceforth you thinking of your sins. I received beatings, thrashings, for your follies Fruit of Eden you ate and I took bitter drink Leaves covered - your nakedness then Naked they - hung me on the tree Father's wrath was removed by my blood - on the Cross"

Barekmor (meaning: Bless Master)

Priest in Syriac: Shubaho LAbo LaBro val Ruho Kadeesho ( meaning: Glory be to the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit)

Rejoice, ye holy Church! Rejoice as our Lord On the third day, came to life and rose from the tomb Sin, - He killed by His murder; death by His death Cherubs' lance He effaced by lance that he suffered. Tomb's perdition removed by His Tomb; gave life by Resurrection He suffered all - and effaced - all our transgressions

Menaolam Vadhamelaolam Olmeen (meaning: Unto to the ages of ages and forever more.)

Here you can see the idea of Substitutionary Atonement presented in the first paragraph balanced by the Christ the Victor in the second stanza .

Many modern OO Theologians (from several OO jurisdictions, actually) teach the penal satisfaction/Anselmian atonement theory. I have heard many Orthodox believers contest saying that this was a later Western doctrine. I am curious though, has the penal satisfaction theory historically been taught in OOxy, or is it just the result of Protestant/RC influence?

My $0.02: I think the idea of a satisfaction theory of the atonement, Christ satisfying the Father's wrath/consistency/justice and paying the debt of our sins, is an Orthodox teaching so long as it is balanced with the ontological theory (that is, Christ heals human nature and rescues us from the snares of death). I am not so sure the same applies for penal substitution (but, I am willing to keep an open mind either way) because it seems to undermine the impassibility of God by stating that His honor was harmed by our sinfulness.

Bottom line: Has this atonement theory been historically taught in OOxy?

Mardukm would say yes, but no, it has not.

The language you quote above may be misunderstood: the Muslims did so, and there are polemics about Christians making Satan God's treasurer, but it drops out during the third Islamic century/9th cent., my guess because Orthodox made our meaning beyond misunderstanding.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Is he still active on the Internet? I hate it how he purposely distorts OO teaching to make it look like we are like the Latins! Even though our most learned Hierarchs, Theologians, and Holy Fathers teach otherwise. The audacity!

« Last Edit: August 27, 2012, 12:16:40 PM by Severian »

Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ

Thank you. I think I will try to contact Fr. Athanasius Iskander and ask his opinion on the issue. The man deserves his name, and he has done a good job responding to other Western influences which have crept into our Church.

Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ

Dear Severian,Though the exact mechanism of salvation remains a mystery to us, our fathers have given us various prisms to understand the Divine Mystery of Salvation. The problem arises when only one of those prisms that too slightly distorted is emphasized.You can see the language of Substitutionary Atonement dispersed throughout the Prayers used in the Syriac Orthodox Church. But always you will find any reference to sufferings of Christ for us is balanced by Christ the Victor; and how his resurrection gives us life. The best example of this can be seen in the following Syriac Hymn (English translation) from the Sunday Evening Prayers as used in the Syriac tradition (Syriac Orthodox and Malankara Orthodox).

Lord gave Adam courage, among all the dead Be not troubled henceforth you thinking of your sins. I received beatings, thrashings, for your follies Fruit of Eden you ate and I took bitter drink Leaves covered - your nakedness then Naked they - hung me on the tree Father's wrath was removed by my blood - on the Cross"

Barekmor (meaning: Bless Master)

Priest in Syriac: Shubaho LAbo LaBro val Ruho Kadeesho ( meaning: Glory be to the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit)

Rejoice, ye holy Church! Rejoice as our Lord On the third day, came to life and rose from the tomb Sin, - He killed by His murder; death by His death Cherubs' lance He effaced by lance that he suffered. Tomb's perdition removed by His Tomb; gave life by Resurrection He suffered all - and effaced - all our transgressions

Menaolam Vadhamelaolam Olmeen (meaning: Unto to the ages of ages and forever more.)

Here you can see the idea of Substitutionary Atonement presented in the first paragraph balanced by the Christ the Victor in the second stanza .

Thank you for this very interesting hymn.

Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ

I don't know why I'm posting this, but fwiw, from the Akathist for the Repose Of Those Who Have Fallen Asleep...

"Thy light, O Christ our God, has shone upon those sitting in the darkness and shadow of death and those in Hell who cannot cry to Thee. Descend into the infernal regions of the earth, O Lord, and bring out into the joy of grace Thy children who have been separated from Thee by sin but who have not rejected Thee. For they suffer cruelly. Have mercy on them. For they sinned against Heaven and before Thee, and their sins are infinitely grievous, and Thy mercy is infinite. Visit the bitter misery of souls separated from Thee. Have mercy, O Lord, on those who hated the truth out of ignorance. May Thy love be to them not a consuming fire but the coolness of Paradise: O Lord of unutterable Love, remember Thy servants who have fallen asleep."

Here's a Coptic Orthodox fraction to God the Son said at any point in the year. The lyrics are interesting in that they do teach that Christ satisfied the Divine Justice (albeit, it probably uses the "Divine Justice" terminology with an intent different than that of Anselm). What do you all think?

O only-begotten Son, God, the Logos who loved us, and through His love, He desired to redeem us from eternal perdition.

And since death was in the way of our redemption, He desired to go through it out of His love for us. And thus, He ascended upon the Cross that He may bear the punishment of our sins.

We are the ones who sinned, and He is the One who suffered.

We are the ones who were indebted to divine justice because of our sins, and He was the One who paid off the debts on our behalf.

For our sake, He preferred suffering over joy, toil over rest, contempt over glory, and the Cross over the throne which is carried by the cherubim.

He consented to be tied by ropes that He may loose us from the bonds of our sins. He humbled Himself that He may lift us up. He hungered to satiate us, and thirsted to quench our thirst.

And He ascended upon the Cross naked that He might clothe us with the garment of His righteousness. And He opened His side by the spear that we might enter into Him and dwell in the throne of His grace, and that the Blood might flow from His Body that we might wash ourselves from our iniquities.

Indeed, He died and was buried in the tomb, then He arose that He might raise us from the death of sin, and give us life unto life eternal.

My sins, O my God, are the thorns that pierce your holy head; I, who have saddened Your heart by my rejoicing in the vain pleasures of the world.

What is this road that leads to death in which You are walking, O my God and my Savior?

What is it that You are carrying upon Your shoulders? This is the cross of shame which You have carried on my behalf.

What is this, O Redeemer? What has caused You to consent to this?

Shall the Great One be despised? Shall the Glorified One be afflicted? Shall the Exalted One be humbled? Oh! The greatness of Your love.

Yes, it is Your great love that made You accept with endurance all these sufferings for my sake.

I give thanks to You, O my God, and Your angels, with all Your creation, give thanks to You on my behalf, for I am unable to present Your praise as befits Your love. Have we ever seen a greater love?

So be sorrowful, O my soul, for your sins that caused these sufferings to Your compassionate Redeemer. Portray His wound before you, and hope in Him when the enemy rages against you.

O my Lord Jesus Christ, who was wounded on account of our sins, and by Your bruises we were healed, wound me by the spear of Your healing divine love. And by the blood of your Cross, purify me from my sins. Cheer me also by Your love, O You who accepted death for my sake, that You may redeem me and give me life.

O my Lord Jesus, my beloved, if You see me as a withered organ, soften me with the oil of Your grace, and confirm me in You as a living branch, O true Vine.

And when I come forth to partake of Your mysteries, make me worthy of Them, and fit for communion with You, so that I may dare with boldness without fear to call on Your holy Father, who is in the heavens, with the voice of children, saying, Our "Father ...."

I posted that exact text (or at least the relevant portion of it, as you've highlighted it) on Tasbeha a long time ago when I still posted there. I can't remember exactly, but I think the consensus was that there wasn't anything wrong with it, I was just looking at it the wrong way thanks to my RC background. I don't know. This is one of the things I trust the church to understand properly, because I sure don't.

The Divine Justice is a demand for righteousness, not for a suitable victim to serve a sentence.

What is the word "Justice" in Coptic used?

In the Scriptures, "justice" is often equally translatable as "righteousness" for a reason.

I am not even sure this hymn was originally written in Coptic, as no Coptic translation was provided. Its original language might have been Arabic. The Arabic word used is العدل * which derives from the verb عَدَلَ ** which (according to the Oxford Essential Arabic Dictionary p.266) means "to be fair."

Phonetics: * ("al-3dl")** ("3adeleh")

« Last Edit: March 04, 2013, 03:30:06 AM by Severian »

Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ

I had the same question and have yet to find a coptic rendering of this hymn. I do not think it was originally written in arabic and my guess would be that it was originally authored in arabic in a time where the penal/anselmian notion of the 'atonement' was the main view maintained by many of the clergy, indeed even today it seems a rather popularly held belief. I do not believe this is in the spirit of Orthodoxy, indeed the liturgies used by the Coptic Orthodox Church do not even make mention of the penal substitution view of the salvific nature of Christ's Death, Resurrection and Ascension.

"Was incarnate and became man, and taught us the ways of salvation. He granted us the birth from on high through water and Spirit. He made us unto Himself a congregation, and sanctified us by Your Holy Spirit. He loved His own who are in the world, and gave Himself up for our salvation unto death, which reigned over us, whereby we were bound and sold on account of our sins. He descended into Hades through the Cross." Liturgy of St. Basil accessible at http://tasbeha.org/hymn_library/cat/208

The liturgy of St. Cyril, which was originally authored by St. Mark the apostle and first prelate of Egypt, in speaking about the Eucharist elaborates on it,

"That they may be unto all of us who partake of them, faith without searching, love without hypocrisy." (with Lord have mercy chanted by the congregation in response)

"Perfect patience, firm hope. "

"Faith and watchfulness, health and joy."

"Renewal for the soul, body, and spirit, glory to Your holy name."

"Sharing in the blessedness of eternal life and incorruption, and forgiveness of sins."